PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE ————————————————— Duterte wants to overhaul the unitary-presidential system and shift to a federal-parliamentary system through a Constitutional Convention. He desires the holding of a plebiscite and preparing the future federal states to effect power-sharing, resources-sharing, respect-for-all and development-for-all as key to reforming the whole bureaucracy to effect good governance. Reforms under the new system are said to include: increasing the salaries of government workers; fighting graft and corruption; and unleashing the full potentials of all regions and ethnic groups for social, economic and cultural growth. Furthermore, constitutional amendment shall lift restrictive economic provisions in the Constitution, grant more foreign ownership of property and certain industries.

The centerpiece of Duterte’s campaign platform was suppressing the three so-called evils: crime, illegal drugs and corruption, which he believes are undermining security across all sectors and hampering the growth of the domestic economy. He pledged to instill discipline with an iron fist for everyone to adhere to the rule of law and strengthen the country’s justice system. To reestablish law and order, he plans to launch a focused, time-bound campaign against criminals, drug lords and corrupt government officials through the joint efforts of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

He also plans to carry out: improvement of government provision of social services which include education, health, housing, mass transportation with special attention to the elderly, women, children, youth, indigenous peoples and other marginalized sectors; provision of assistance to Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) and their families; and adaptation to climate change through reducing risk, preparing for natural disasters and adopting 911 nationwide.

Atty Bruce Rivera wins this debate to my opinion. he is more deeper or I should say he is a bigger puncher over his opponent and he counter punched in different angles too. I stopped watching when the debate reached to that "NEUTRALIZATION" term argument. The other lawyer said neutralization means killing. That's stupid. Common sensically, Neutralization doesn't absolutely mean killing. To me the safest meaning of that is to control the difficult, intense or violent situation or condition. It's not killing at all. You don't have to kill in order to control and neutralize the situation unless it is necessary. Fucking hell I am thinking of studying law now. lol.